3umar and Faruq

8/6/2019 3umar and Faruq

1/25

Maisonneuve & Larose

The Title "Frq" and Its Association with 'Umar IAuthor(s): Suliman BashearSource: Studia Islamica, No. 72 (1990), pp. 47-70Published by: Maisonneuve & LaroseStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1595775 .

Accessed: 19/03/2011 15:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mal. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Maisonneuve & Larose is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Studia Islamica.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=malhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1595775?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=malhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=malhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1595775?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mal


2/25

THE TITLE ( FARUQ>QAND ITS ASSOCIATIONWITH 'UMAR I*

'Umar I, the second caliph of Islam, figures centrally in Muslimtraditional sources as the true consolidator of that religion andpolity. This view was initially accepted on modern westernscholars some of whom compared his overall role to that ofSt. Paul, "the second man" in Christianity.(1) Gradually, how-ever, few scholars expressed more caution in their assessment ofthe historicity of such role, owing to the subjection of thetraditional reports on him to critical scrutiny and the exposition ofa great deal of contradictions and obscurities.(2)Lately, note was also made of the fact that no serious attemptwas made at examining the religious aspects of the personality androle of the man especially by modern Muslim scholars who,instead, usually present him as a perfect ruler fit even fortwentieth century political ideals of democracy, etc.(3) On theother hand, note must be made of the new line opened by the

* In the course of working on this paper I had fruitful discussions with Prof.M. J. Kister and made use of the material, especially from manuscriptural sourcesof his, which he referred me to. For all that I owe him a special debt of gratitude.I also thank the Truman Institute of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem for thefinancial grant which made the accomplishment of this work possible.(1) Compare: Sir W. Muir, Annals of the Early Caliphate, London 1883, 283-4;D. S. Margoliouth, Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, London 1905, 162-5, 167, 346;W. R. Smith, "Some Similarities and Differences Between Christianity and Islam",The World of Islam, London 1960, 52.(2) G. Levi Della Vida, "Omar ibn al-Khattab", s.v., E.I. 1st ed., 982-4 and thesources cited therin.(3) H. Lazarus-Yafe, "Umar..." in S. Morag & I. Ben Ami eds., Studies inGeniza, Jerusalem 1981, 319 inf.


3/25

S. BASHEARauthors of Hagarism in the study of that personality and role,where they suggest that the title "faruq" constitutes in fact anIslamic fossilization of a certain Jewish idea of messianism.(4)All this justifies a further investigation of this title with which'Umar was heavily associated to the degree that it became hissecond name. A task which the present paper tries to accomplish ina way that will hopefully contribute to a better understanding notonly to the role and personality of 'Umar but also indirectly to theliterary processes through which the relevant reports on himcrystallized. In doing so we shall examine the meaning of "fadruq"and the contexts in which its association with 'Umar werepresented by the different lexical, biographical, exegetical, histo-riographical and other traditional Muslim sources.1) Arabic FRQ and Some Semitic Cognates.

From the root FRQ in Arabic, as well as other Semitic languageslike Sabaic, Syriac, Hebrew and Aramaic PRQ, can be derivedverbs, nouns and adjectives denoting division, separation, dis-persal and deliverance. Some of these derivations convey clearreligious connotations. The verbs frq and tfrq in Sabaic can meanboth to deliver/save and to seek safety/be dispersed/scatter. (5)Likewise, Syriac ais means both to divide/set apart and tosave. And, from the latter meaning comes Lo i rL = saviourand lo 9 A = salvation/redemption.( 6) Indeed, both R. Belland A. Jeffery believed Quranic "furqan" to have come fromSyriac perqana which denotes salvation.(7) Also noteworthy inthis context is the fact that the fifth century Beirfni explicitly saysthat "faruqd rabba" is a Syriac phrase which means "the greatredeemer" (bi-l-surydniyya...: al-munajji al-azam).(8) He alsoadds that one of the holy days for the Nestorian Christians was"al-faruqa, meaning salvation, which is the thursday occurring onthe 24th day of [their] fasting."(9) Finally, "al-Faruq" occurs as a

(4) P. Crone & M. Cook, Hagarism, Cambridge 1980, 5.(5) A. F. L. Beeston et al., Sabaic Dictionary, Louvain and Beirut 1982, 46.(6) M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, A Syriac-English Glossary, Wiesbaden 1970, 64-5.(7) R. Bell, The Origins of Islam in its Christian Environment, London 1926, 120;A. Jeffery, The Koran, Selected Suras Translated, N. Y. 1958, 228.(8) Beiruni, al-'Athar al-Baqiya, Leipzig 1923, 16.(9) Ibid., 311.


4/25

THE TITLE ((FARUQA) AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH 'UMAR Ititle of Jesus Christ himself in an undated rendering into Arabic ofa story attributed to Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem.(10)In two Old Testament instances, the Hebrew cognates,3lp".1 and p?", convey "to be delivered" and "attonefor", respectively.(n) lpjD.p n the Mishna denotes "rescue".(2)And in several instances in the Babylonian Talmud there occurHebrew-Aramaic words denoting both salvation and rescue.(13)As for Arabic FRQ, our lexical sources give numerous deri-vations. Noteworthy are those which relate to the stems faraqaand farraqa, the abstract nouns of which are farq (furq)/furqdnand tafriqltafriqa, respectively. The main difference betweenthe two verbal forms is that faraqa (pl.: yafruqu/yafriqu) denotes"to make distinct/clear", while farraqa means "divided/sepa-rated." (14)Several derivations of these two forms do occur in the

Qufan. In few cases the meaning given to them depends on theirreading. E.g., while it is more plausible to read 2/50 as "farraqndbikum al-bahr" meaning "we split the sea with you", 17/106 couldbe read: "wa-qur'inan farraqndhu/faraqnahu" to mean both "werevealed separately" and "we made distinct/clear".As for the abstract noun "furqdn" it occurs as a name of a wholescripture (as in Qur'an 2/53, 3/4, 21/48), or of a specific chapter of it(sura 25) or else, as in 2/185; 8/29, 41, in the meanings of salvation,victory and proof.(15) Note that in these sources Qur'an 8/41 in

(10) Qissat al-Qiddisa Maryam al-Misriyya, Ms. of the Monastery of St.Catherine, Mount Sinai, The Library of Congress, Arabic 538, fol. 371 (1):"...wa-Kdna If ta'dmun Id yafnd, rajd'f al-fdriq, wa-Kuntu asta'tnu bihi,alladhl huwa qad(run 'aId Kulli shay'."(11) Psalms 136/24: uins 1upwi and Daniel 4/24: pio npist Ixom.(12) Ketuvot 4/4: ... ,mlpnDo rrrnum an-m.(13) 'IrkhFn33/1: 'pp-i (salvation/rescue); Kidhushin 21/1: po't (he was saved/rescued); Minhot 100/2; p'n'm (he was saved/rescued); Bikhorot 32/3, 39/1 and Megila27/1: y'pnt (to be saved); Kiluvot 52/2, 57/2:;npnD (rescue/salvation).(14) E. Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon, Beirut repr. 1980, 6/2383; Ibn Faris(d. 395 H.), Mu'jam, Cairo 1369 H., 4/493-5; Jawhari, Taj, Cairo 1282 H., 2/113-4;Zanjani, Tahdhib, Cairo 1952, 2/594; RBaz, Mukhtdr, Cairo 1926, 500-1; Ibn Manzur,Lisdn Cairo n.d., 12/177-8; Zabidi, Tdj, Cairo 1306 H., 7/43-6.(15) Ibn Manzfr 12/177; Zabidi 7/45-6; Fayruzabadi, Basd'ir, Cairo 1969 4/186;Ibn Durayd (d. 321 H.), Jamhara, Haydarabad 1345 H., 2/400; Azhari (d. 370 H.),Tahdhib, Cairo 1964, 9/105; al-Rfghib al-Isfahani, al-Mufraddt, in the margin of Ibnal-Athir, al-Nihdya, Cairo 1322, 3/230; E. Lane 6/2386.

49


5/25

particular was usually taken to refer to the battle of Badr as "theday of the furqdn."(16)In one hadith source furqdn was also interpreted as a mediator orintercessor (shdfi/mushaffi).(17) But some lexical sources do notfail to note that furqdn could mean "dawn" too because of thedistinction and clarity it brings. The masoretic phrases quoted inthis context are: "tala'a/sata'a al-furqdin" and "faraqa al-subh".(18) Such meaning is based on interpreting "faraqa" asbecame clear. And in this context Ibn 'Abbas was quoted assaying "faraqa It ra'y" (an opinion was made clear to me).(19)But furqan is not the only infinitive (abstract) form offaraqa.(20) The other two ones noted as such are farq andfurq. It is worth noting that these two forms are given asalternative names for the Qur'an itself; i.e., besides "furqdn". Inthis context the following verse is usually brought to support suchsubstitution : "wa-mushrikiyyin Kdfirin bi-l-furqi/bi-l-farqi" (and apolytheist disbelieving in the furqlfarq).(21)It is also interesting to see how Muhammad himself wasdescribed by an anonymous hadflh as: "farqun bayna al-nds, 'ay:yafruqu/yufraqu bayna al-mu'minfn wa-l-kdfirin bi-tasdfqihiwa-takdhibih." (Muhammad is a farq between people, i.e., he/believing or disbelieving in him affects the distinction (clarifica-tion) of believers from infidels.)(22)The above-mentioned tradition is a highly isolated one for whichI could not trace any traditional authority or source. However, itrefers to Muhammad in a term which is an alternative abstractnoun synonymous to furqdn itself. We shall see below how,

(16) See also the early source of Ibn Ishaq (d. 150 H.), K. al-Siyar wa-l-Maghazi,through the recension of Yfnus b. Bukayr, Damascus 1978, 130 and al-Saghdni, al-Takmila, Cairo 1977, 5/13.(17) Al-Hakim, Mustadrak, Riyad 1968, 3/578.(18) E. Lane 6/2386; Ibn Faris 4/494; Zamakhshari, Asds al-Balagha, Cairo 19232/198.(19) Ibn al-Athir 3/214; Suyiut, al-Durr al-Nathir, in the margin of Ibn al-Athir,ibid.(20) It seems that its close association with the scripture and occurrence as a

name for it caused one source, Isfahani 3/230, to mention the possibility ofconsidering it as a proper noun.(21) Compare: Jawharl 2/113; Ibn Manzur 12/177; Fayrfzabadi 4/186; Lane6/2385.(22) Ibn Manzir 12/177; Ibn Al-Athir and Suyfut 3/214.

50 S. BASHEAR


6/25

THE TITLE iFARUQ* AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH 'UMAR I

according to another unique tradition, Muhammad was specified asone of those who were considered as "fairiuq".Let us now consider the active participle ('ism al-fd'il) of faraqa,namely fariq. Actually, our attention to fariq was drawn in thecontext of the attemps made by some of these sources to explainwhat furqdn meant. Here, the usual explanation given is "Kullmd faraqa/furiqa bihi bayna al-haqq wa-l-batil" (anything that adistinction is made by/through it between truth andfalsity).(23) Note, however, the important variant readings of thisdefinition in some sources. In Ibn Manzfir as well as another latesource the phrase "wa-l-halal wa-l-haram" is added in a way thatgives a clear legal dimension to such definition. () Anothernoteworthy issue is the vocalization of frq and yfrq. We have seenthat almost all our lexical sources relate farq, furq, furqdn, fariqand firuiq to the first stem, faraqa in the sense of affecting adistinction/clarification. In the printed editions of few sources,however, furqin and faruq are related also to vocalised farraqameaning split/separate. Thus in Fayrfzabadi we read : "furq andfurqdn: (are) the Qur'an and anything that by which a separation ismade (md furriqa bihi) between truth and falsity."(25) In IbnManzfir the confusion is even clearer: "furqdn" is defined as "Kullma furiqa bihi...", while for "faruq" the phrase used is "mdfarraqa/yufarriqu bayna shay'ayn/al-haqq wa-l-bdail."(26)Tracing the beginnings of the intervention of the reading farraqaand the confusion between it and faraqa will carry us beyond thescope of the present inquiry. We tend to believe, however, thatthe roots of such confusion lie in the variant readings of someQuranic occurrences where "al-furqdn" could also be presented as ascripture whose verses were revealed separately or on differentoccasions. One must also remember that the stem farraqa doesindeed mean splitted/separated. Hence, already in Ibn Durayd(d. 321 H.) we are faced with the equation of the unvocalized verbfrq with "fassala" in the very context of defining what fariqwas.(27) About half a century later, Azhari (d. 370 H.) usedfarraqa to explain the Quranic reference to both the Bible and the

(23) E. Lane 6/2385; Jawhari 2/113; Azhari 9/105; Ibn Faris 4/493; Zabidi 7/43.(24) Ibn Manzfr 12/177; Ibn al-Athir 3/214.(25) Fayrfzabadi 4/186.(26) Ibn Manzur 12/177-8.(27) Ibn Durayd 2/399.

51


7/25

Qu'ran as furqdns.(28) On the other hand, towards the end of thefourth century, Ibn Faris (d. 395 H.) could still define fariq assomebody who makes the distinction of things. He also equatedyafriqu with yafsilu - both in the first stem.(29)Indeed, Ibn Durayd himself adds to the above-mentioneddefinition of faruq the notion that 'Umar was called as such"because he demonstrated (azhara) Islam in Mecca and thusaffected the distinction (fa-faraqa) between belief and infidelity(al-'Tman wa-l-Kufr) [there]."(30) It is interesting to see how thisnotion of demonstrating Islam in Mecca, in the sense of affecting adistinction between belief and infidelity there, reappears in latersources as an alternative explanation to the one of making adistinction (var.: separating) between truth and falsity (bayna al-haqqwa-l-badil).(31) Finally there was a thrid alternative explana-tion for calling 'Umar as such where it was said that "God struckthe truth on his tongue" daraba al-lahu bi-l-haqqi 'ala lisanih).(82)But "fdraq" is only a less common intensive adjective of theverb faraqa, while its active participle is of course fariq. And it isinteresting to see how Ibn Durayd, who notes the fd'ul conjuga-tion, does not fail to mention that'Umar was not only called fdruqbut fariq too.(33)The same conjugation of "fariq" reappears in two later sourcesin order to interpret not only fdruq but furqdn too. Isfahaninotes that 'Umar was called fdruq "because of being fariqbetween truth and falsity." (li-kawnihi fariqan bayna al-haqqwa-l-bdtil).(34) For Ibn al-Athir calling the Qur'an "al-furqdn"meant that it was a fariq between truth and falsity too.(35)Another occurrence of this conjugation is Qur'an 77/4 where wemeet the feminine plural form "al-fdriqat". It is interesting to seehow two of the above quoted sources, Isfahani and Fayruzabidi,interpret fariqat as the angels who descend with the distinctionbetween things/truth and falsity.(36) Turning to the Quranic

(28) Azhari 9/105.(29) Ibn Faris 4/495.(30) Ibn Durayd 2/399.(31) Ibn Manzfr 12/178; Zabidi 7/43.(32) Ibn Manzur, ibid.; Zabidi, ibid.; Zamakhshari 2/198.(33) Ibn Durayd 3/389.(34) Al-Isfahani 3/230.(35) Ibn al-Athir 3/214.(36) FayrfzabadT 4/186; Isfahani 3/230.

52 S. BASHEAR


8/25

THE TITLE (FARUQ)# AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH 'UMAR Icommentaries we find that the relatively early Ibn Qutayba(d. 276 H.) and Tustari (d. 282 H.) understood "fdriqit" as theangels who affect such distinction (tafruqu) either between truthand falsity(37) or between sunna and heretical novelty (bid'a) or,else, between what is lawful and unlawful (halal wa-hardm).(38)Further details on the development of the interpretation of thisterm can be found in the exegetical traditions brought by Tabari(d. 310 H.). From the isnad and content of these traditions welearn about the crystallization of two distinct notions around themid-second century. One is attributed either to Abf Salih(Badham, d. 101 H.) on the authority of Ismail (b. Abi Khalid,d. 146 H.), or to Ibn 'Abbas (d. 68 H.) through a "family isnad"ending with M. b. Sa'd al-'Awfi (d. 276 H.) on the authority of hisgreat grandfather 'Atiyya (d. 111-27 H.). This tradition inter-prets ftriqdt as "the angels who affect distinction (tafruqu)between truth and falsity."(39)The second notion brought by Tabari confirms the same elementof making distinction between truth and falsity. However itinterprets fariqit as the verses of the Qu'ran itself, whose revelationdoes so. And from the chain of isndd of the tradition which bringsit (Said b. Abi 'Ariba, d. 155 H., from Qatada, d. 117-8 H.) welearn that such notion was also current around mid-secondcentury.Later commentary sources reiterate these two notions and add athird one which says that fariqdt are the winds which separate andscatter the clouds. One of these sources, Tabarsi, attributes sucha notion to Mujahid.(40) Others either bring these views atrandom or in a selective way.(41) Finally, Razi brings a fourth onewhich says that fariqda are "the missions of prophets" who also"affect the distinction between truth and falsity, monotheism andinfidelity." (42)

(37) Tustari, Tafsir, Cairo 1329 H., 114.(38) Ibn Qutayba, Tafs(r, Cairo 1958, 505.(39) Tabari, Tafs[r, Cairo 1929, 29/142-3.(40) Tabarsi, Majma', Beirut 1954, 29/156.(41) Zamakhshari, Kashshaf, Cairo 1354 H., 4/173; Nasafi Tafstr, Beirut n.d.,4/322; Bayd.wi, Anwdr, Cairo 1344 H., 583; Mahalli and Suyfuti, Tafsfr al-JaldlaynCairo n.d., 497; Abu al-Sa'id, Tafsir, in the margin of Razi, Mafdt.h, Cairo 1308 H.,8/325-6; al-Qasimi, Mahasin, Cairo 1960, 17/6020.(42) Razi, Mafaiih, op. cit., 8/290. Compare also with Naysaburi, Ghard'ib, inthe margin of Tabari 29/126-33.

53


9/25

To sum up the lexical evidence brought forth so far, we maysafely say that the intensive adjective "fariq", and the regularconjugation of the active participle, fariq, relate heavily to faraqa,the first stem of Arabic FRQ, which conveys the sense of affectingdistinction and clarity and even of demonstrating one thing,especially a belief, in contrast to another. Such sense prevails inspite of some intervention in the form of certain readings ofderivations from the second stem, farraqa, which conveys themeaning of to split and separate. However, when viewed in thereligious contexts of their occurrences, faruq, fariq and the twoinfinite forms, farq and furqdn, convey a sense of distinction of atrue faith as opposed to infidelity and unbelief, to whose emergenceis also attached the sense of salvation and redemption.In such sense these concepts heavily correspond to severalSemitic cognates which reflect certain Judeo-Christian currents ofmessianic beliefs in such awaited redemption and which prevailedin the area in pre-Islam. However, the intervention of thereadings from farraqa and the addition of the legal element of"halal wa-har(m" in such "tafr(q" undoubtedly affected theundermining of this messianic and religious sense. In whatfollows we shall proceed to examine the way in which theassociation of the title "faruq" with 'Umar was presented inMuslim sources, with attention being paid to other early Islamicfigures who are also reported to have born it.2) 'Umar and Others.

Although "faruq" was heavily associated with 'Umar I to theextent that it almost became his second name, Muslim sourcesconfirm that others also bore this epithet. Of these mention mustbe made of two pre-Islamic figures whose very names are broughtin connection with the fact that they were considered faruqs.They are: Jabala b. Asaf and Zubayd b. Mas'fd, both from theKalb tribe of the Syrian confederation of Quda'a. From the othertitles they bore and the reported peotry in their praise one mayassume that they held responsible posts of leadership, though noreligious connotations could be discerned. The fact of bearing thetitle friiq was mentioned by the early source of Ibn al-Kalbi(d. 204 H.) and was reiterated by only two later ones, one of

54 S. BASHEAR


10/25

THE TITLE FFARUQ) AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH 'UMAR I

whom, however, quoting another early third century source, theAnsab of Abi 'Ubayd (d. 224 H.).(43)Some, similarly isolated traditions mention the Prophet Muham-mad too as being one of those who bore this title. Note was madeabove of one such tradition which relates to him by the abstractnoun "farq" in the context of the distinction affected by believingin him. In yet another obscure tradition it was explicitly saidthat his name in the zabir (Psalms) was faruq.(44) And the samenotion is confirmed by a third source, the pseudo-Waqidi on Futuhal-Sham in the form of a unique tradition on the occupation of thecity of Halab by Abi 'Ubayda. It is related there how the latterwas asked by the Patriarch of that city, who later professed Islam,whether "your prophet is the one who is known from theEvangelion, the appearance of whom undoubtedly was foreseen byChrist, who is the fariq who affects the distinction between truthand falsity and who is the generous, orphan prophet whose parentswould die and who would be sponsored by his grandfather and hisuncle...?" To this, we are told, Abi 'Ubayda responded: "Yes,he is our prophet."(45)The title "fariq" was strongly associated in some sources withthe name of 'All b. Abi Talib too. The third century Shiitetraditionist, Furat al-Kfif, attributes to 'All the saying : "I am thefariq who affects the distinction between truth and falsity andI am the one who enters my followers to paradise and my enemiesto hell."(46) The same source also brings a tradition of 'Imranb. Milhan (Abf Raja' al 'Utaridi, d. 107-9 H.) which attributes tothe companion Abfi Dharr the saying that 'All was "...thegreater siddfq and the supreme faruq..."(47)

Other, later sources confirm the notion that 'All was called "al-

(43) Ibn al-Kalbi, Kitdb al-Nasab al-Kabir, Ms. Escorial, Libro tercero ultimo,fols. 393, 396 (I am indebted to M. J. Kister for this source). Zabldi, 7/48,mentions only Jabala b. Asaf as bearing this title and quotes for that the Ansab ofthe third century Abu 'Ubayd. Ibn al-Fuwati (d. 723 H.) gives the full genealogy ofthe two and the poetry related in their honour. Their other titles mentioned by himare: al-ra'"s(the chief) for Jabala and al-Jaw&d (the generous) for Zubayd. See his:Talkhis Majma' Al-'Adab, Cairo 1965, 4 (3)/19-21.(44) Khargfshi, Lawdml', Ms. Vaticana, Ar. 1642, fol. 88(a). (I am indebted toM. J. Kister for this source.)(45) Pseudo-Waqidi, Fuituh al-Shdm, Cairo 1954, 1/190.(46) Tafsir Furat, Najaf n.d., 13.(47) Ibid., 26.

55


11/25

fadrq al-akbar".(48) But it is a mistake to think that suchinformation appears only in ShFite sources. Ahmad b. Hanbal,for example, was quoted as bringing in his Mandqib a propheticaltradition with full isnad, according to which Muhammad indeedsaid to 'All: "you are the greater siddfq and the fariq who affectsthe distinction between truth and falsity".(49) Finally, IbnTaymiyya confirms, in a work which was initially meant to providea Sunni argument against the ShVa, that the Prophet said about'All: "this is the faruq of my umma who affects the distinctionbetween truth and falsity".(50) Still, Ibn Taymiyya argues, it was'Umar and not 'AlT with whom this title became eventuallyassociated.Such association with 'Umar is indeed confirmed by a diversityof Muslim sources from various genres. However, there is a widedisagreement over the questions of who gave him this title and inwhat circumstances this was done; a fact which probably led someearly as well as late compilers to bring this information withoutgoing into any details.(51) Others limited themselves to onlyexplaining that he was called as such because he declared Islam inMecca and affected or will affect the distinction between truth andfalsity. (52)In the course of this study we shall also see few, especiallysecond and third century sources, who do not mention 'Umar asbeing called fdruq at all. Noteworthy at this stage is K. NasabQuraysh of Mus'ab al-Zubayri (d. 236 H.) who only states that hewas one of the early Muhajirin and the first to be called amfr al-muslimfn.(53) However, those sources which give some details onwho called 'Umar by this title and in what circumstances this wasdone, split between three main notions:

(48) Al-Fuwati, 4 (3)/21-2.(49) Muhibb al-Din al-Tabari, Dhakha'ir al-'Uqbd, Ms. Zahiriyya, general/4808/29. Compare with a similar tradition from Ibn 'Abbas brought by Dhahabi,Mizan, 2/416-7.(50) Ibn Taymiyya, Minhaj al-Sunna, Cairo 1962, 1/111.(51) E.g., Ibn Habib (d. 245 H.), al-Muhabbar, Beirut n.d., 303; idem, al-Munammaq, Haydarabad 1964, 510; Dhahabi, Tadhkira, Beirut n.d., 1/5; idem,Siyar, Cairo n.d., 1/101; Safadi, Umard' Dimashq, Damascus 1955, 189.(52) Compare: Mas'Odi,Muruj, Beirut 1970, 3/48; Ja'di, Tabaqat, Cairo 1957, 38;Ibn al-Athir, Lubdb, Cairo 1356 H., 2/191; Nuwayri, Nihdyat al-'Arab, Cairo 1975,19/147.(53) Ed. Cairo 1953, 347.

56 S. BASHEAR


12/25

THE TITLE (FARUQ*) AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH 'UMAR Ia) The Prophet did so when 'Umar professed Islam.b) God/Jibril did so in connection with the revelation of Qufan

4/60.c) It was "ahl al-Kildb" (people of the scripture) who calledhim fdruq.In what follows we shall proceed to scrutinize the traditionalinformation on each of these notions.3) 'Umar's Conversion.

The idea that the Prophet called 'Umar "fadriq" appears in somebiographical and historiographical sources from the third centuryon. Ibn Sa'd (d. 230 H.), 'Umar b. Shabba (d. 262 H.), Tabari(d. 310 H.) as well as some later sources attribute to 'A'isha atradition to that effect.(54) Its isndd runs: Waqidi (d. 207 H.) -+Ya'qib b. Mujahid (Medinese d. 150 H.) -+ Muhammad b. Ibrahim(Medinese, d. 119 H.) -+ Dhakwan (d. 63 H.) - 'A'isha.A second tradition brought by Ibn Sa'd, this time not fromWaqidi but from Azraqi (d. 212-22 H.), attributes to the Prophetvia Ayyfb b. Mfis (Meccan d. 132 H.) the saying: "God put thetruth on the tongue and heart of 'Umar and he is the fdriq bywhom God made the distinction between truth and falsity."(55)But these traditions, as well as other unspecified ones broughtby other sources,(56) do not tell the exact circumstances in whichthe Prophet gave 'Umar this title. However, such a gap is filledby a separate tradition, brought in the name of Ibn 'Abbas, whichattributes to 'Umar a story on his conversion including theProphet's naming him fdruq on that occasion.In an attempt to trace this tradition, we notice that only few,relatively late and mainly non-sfra or had(th sources, bring it, oftenwithout isndd, source or even its attribution to Ibn 'Abbas in the

(54) Ibn Sa'd, Tabaqlt, Beirut 1957, 3/271; 'Umar b. Shabba, Tdrfkh al-Mad?na,Cairo n.d., 662 (I am indebted to Kister for it); Tabari, Tdarkh, Beirut 1967, 4/195;Ibn al-Jawzi, Mandqib... 'Umar, Beirut 1982, 19; NawawT, Tahdhfb al-'Asma', Cairon.d., 2/4, Ibn al-Athir, Usd, Cairo 1280 H., 4/57; Suyuti, Tarikh al-Khulafd', Beirut1986, 128.(55) Ibn Sa'd, 3/270; Ibn al-Jawzi, 19; Nawawl 2/4; Ibn al-Athir, Usd, op. cit.,4/57.(56) Al-Qalqashandi, Ma'athir al-Indfa, Kuweit 1964, 1/87: it is either theProphet or ahl al-Kitdb who called him fdruq. Ibn Manzur, 7/43, gives all thealternative views without mentioning any traditional source.

57


13/25

first place.(57) One of these, Dhahabi (d. 748 H.) states explicitlythat the isndd of this tradition is weak (da'tf).(58) Suyuti(d. 911 H.) and Haythami (d. 974 H.) bring it and point to twoearlier sources, Abf Nu'aym (d. 430 H.) and Ibn 'Asakir (d. 571 H.)as having brought its full isndd.(59) Finally, Ibn Hajar (d. 852 H.)brings the source and authority on this tradition which areconfirmed by two works of Abi Nu'aym.(60)From the information brought by these sources, it seems clearthat the initial and only early source for this tradition is the Tdrlkhof the mid-third century Muhammad b. 'Uthman b. AbiShayba. Its isndd runs backwards through usually unidentifiedchains though the authority on it seems to be Ishaq b. 'Abdullah b.Abi Farwa (Medinese d. 136 H.) who was not accepted on hiscontemporary Zuhri (d. 124 H.) and the biographer Ibn Sa'd, andwhose traditions, as we shall see below, were completely ignored byIbn Ishaq as well as the hadfth scholars.(61)As for its content, this tradition attributes to Ibn 'Abbasquestioning'Umar on how he was called fariiq. In response 'Umaris quoted as relating how, after he confessed Islam at the house ofArqam where the Prophet and a handful of his followers werehiding, he insisted to demonstrate that in public. So, togetherwith Hamza, he took the Prophet in a march into the Ka'ba. Onthat occasion, we are told, the Prophet called him "fdriuq"since heaffected the distinction of truth and falsity.In an attempt to evaluate this tradition, a cross-examinationwas conducted into the various traditions on the story of 'Umar'sconversion as they were brought by the major s(ra, historiographi-cal, hadfth and other works. Let us start with the sira works werethis story was told in two traditional versions. One of them,considered by Ibn Ishaq as Medinese, relates in the name of 'Umarhow he went out one day in an attempt to kill Muhammad. Hemet a convert who told him that his sister, Fatima, and cousin/son-

(57) Ibn al-Jawzi, Manaqib, op. cit., 19-20; idem, Safwat al-Safwa, Haydarabad1355, 1/103-4; al-Muhibb al-Tabari, al-Riyad al-Na.dira, Tanta 1953, 1/245-6; Ibn al-Fuwati 4 (3)/22.(58) Tdr'kh al-lsldm, Cairo 1367 H., 1/104-5.(59) SuyutT, Tdrikh al-Khulafd', op. cit., 127-8; al-Haythami, al-SawO'iq al-Vuhriqa, Cairo n.d., 91-2 (I am indebted to Kister for this source).(60) Ibn Hajar, Isdba, Cairo 1971, 4/591, 8/62-3; Abu Nu'aym, Hilya, Cairo 1932,1/40; idem, Dald'il, Haydarabad 1950, 195-6.(61) See on him: Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib, Haydarabad 1325 H., 1/240-2.

58 S. BASHEAR


14/25

THE TITLE fFARUQ)) AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH UMAR Iin-law, Said b. Zayd were also followers of Muhammad. Arousedby this, 'Umar entered angrily their house and hit them. But,feeling sorry and being moved by the sight of his sister's blood, heasked to be allowed to read a sheet which they had, containingchapter 20 (Taha) of the Qur'an. Following that he felt close toconversion, asked to be shown Muhammad's hiding place, wentthere and professed Islam.This Medinese tradition ends at this stage and does not containthe element of the Prophet calling him "faruq" on thatoccasion. As such it was brought by Ibn Ishaq through the tworecensions of Ibn Hisham and Yfnus b. Bukayr.(62) Few latersfra works bring it, some with full isndd on the authority of theMedinese, Usama b. Zayd b. Aslam, who was a contemporary ofIbn Ishaq.(63) Most others, however, bring it, like Ibn Ishaq does,without isnid and often in an abridged form or moulded withother, albeit similar, Medinese traditions.(64) One of these tradi-tions was attributed to 'Umar via Anas b. Malik and was broughtby Ibn Sa'd.(65) It is very similar in content to the one by Usamab. Zayd and, like it too, does not include the element of calling'Umar fdriuqon that occasion.The second tradition on the conversion of 'Umar is a Meccan onebrought also by Ibn Ishaq on the authority of Ibn Abi Najih(d. 131 H.) who transmits it from Mujahid and 'Ata'. Accordingto it, 'Umar relates how he followed the Prophet to the Ka'ba, hidbehind him, heard him reciting chapter 69 of the Qufan (al-Hdqqa)and his heart fell for Islam.(66) A third tradition, similar incontent to this Meccan one was brought by Ibn Hanbal andattributed to 'Umar by Shurayh b. 'Ubayd.(67)

(62) Ibn Hisham, Sira, Beirut 1975, 1/295-7; Ibn Ishiaq, Kitab al-Siyar wa-l-Maghazi, Damascus 1978, 184.(63) E.g.: Ibn Sayyid al-Nfs, 'Uyun, Beirut 1974, 1/222-4; Halabi, Insan, Cairo1320, 1/358-64; Ibn al-Athir, Usd, Cairo 1280, 4/55-6; al-Nfzilli, Mafza', Cairo 1293,34 (I am indebted to Kister for noting this last source).(64) Balkhi/Muqaddasi, al-Bad', Paris 1916, 5/88-90; Dawadari, Kanz al-Durar,Cairo 1981, 3/171-3; Ibn Kathir, Bidaya, Cairo 1932, 3/79-81, Ibn Hazm, Jawami'al-Sira, Cairo n.d., 51; Ibn al-Athir, Kamil, Beirut 1965, 2/84-7; Ibn Khaldfn, 'Ibar,Beirut 1957, 2(4)/723-4; Abf al-Fida, Tar?kh, n.d.p., 1/120; Nuwayri 16/253-6.(65) Tabaqdt, op. cit., 3/267-9. See also: Ibn al-Jawzi, Safwat, op. cit. 1/103;Suyfiti, al-Khasa'is, Cairo 1967, 1/328-9.(66) Ibn Hisham 1/297/8; Dawadfri 3/171-3; Ibn Kathir 3/81; Halabi 1/358-64.(67) Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, Cairo, 1313 H., 1/17-8; Ibn Sayyid al-Nas, 1/125;Ibn al-Jawzi, Safwat 1/102; Ibn al-Athir, Usd, 4/53-4; Ibn Hajar, Isaba 4/590/1;


15/25

Other traditions speak about the steadfastness of 'Umar in hisnew faith, his insistence to demonstrate it, how he was beaten for itby Quraysh and the protection he received from al-'As b.Wa'il.(68) This last element was the only one brought by Bukhariwho, like other hadfth classicists, does not bring the usual siratraditions on the conversion of 'Umar mentioned above and doesnot mention at all his being called fdriq.(69)On the whole, it is striking to see how in none of the traditionscited above from stra, tabaqdi, historiographical, hadith and otherworks, does the element of calling 'Umar fdruq on the occasion ofhis conversion occur. We also note that some early as well as latesources treat the story of conversion and the notion of 'Umar beingcalled fdruq in a completely separate way. Ibn Sa'd is an exampleto such treatment. We have seen how on one occasion he bringsthe 'A'isha tradition which says that the Prophet gave him thistitle but fails to mention this element when speaking about theconversion of 'Umar. Tabari, in his turn does not deal with theissue of conversion at all but brings the 'A'isha tradition from IbnSa'd as one of other alternative views on who gave 'Umar this title.We have also seen how the very fact of calling 'Umar faruq wasnot unanimously accepted on, or at least not noted by all thirdcentury compilers of nasab, hadtfh and other literary branches.Mus'ab al-Zubayri and the hadflh classicists do not recognize himby it. Ibn Habib (d. 245 H.) notes it but does not say who gave itto him. And Ibn Qutayba (d. 276 H.) only says that he wasnamed fdriq "because he declared Islam and called for it whileothers concealed it and, thus, he affected the distinction betweentruth and falsity."(70)Even more striking is the fact that the major biographicalworks, starting with that of Ibn Ishaq, completely ignore theelement of calling 'Umar fdriq on the occasion of his

Suhayll, Rawd, Cairo 1970, 3/277-8 (quoting Ibn Sunjur); Suyuti, Khasa'is, 1/230-2(who also brings another, albeit similar tradition attributed to Jabir b. 'Abdullahand quotes for it the Musnad of Ibn Abi Shayba).(68) Ibn Ishaq (through Yunus b. Bukayr), 184-5; Ibn Hisham 1/298-9; IbnSayyid al-Nas 1/122-5; Ibn al-Athir, Usd, 4/55-7; Ibn Kathir, Bidaya 3/81-2; Halabi1/358-64; Dahlan, Sira, in the margin of Halabi, 1/296-304; Nuwayri 16/256-7.(69) Bukhari, Sah.h, Beirut 1981, 4/242. See also Muslim, Sah.h, Beirutn.d., 7/111-6; Ibn Maja, Sunan, Cairo 1952, 1/38-40; al-Hakim, Musiadrak, op. cit.,3/80-95.(70) Ibn Qutayba, Ma'arif, Cairo 1934, 78.

60 S. BASHEAR


16/25

THE TITLE CFARHUQ AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH 'UMAR Iconversion. Such element is present only in the traditionattributed to Ibn'Abbas and is picked up only by Ibn Abi Shaybaas quoted by Aba Nu'aym, Ibn 'Asakir and few later sources. Ofthe sfra sources proper only three add this element in the course oftheir review of the different variants on 'Umar's conversion eitherwithout noting the discrepancy involved or intentionally avoidingdealing with it.(71)4) 'Umar and Qur'an 4/60.

A number of various sources bring the notion that it was ratherGod himself or angel Jibril who gave 'Umar the title friiq. One ofthem is the lexicographer Azhari cited above who, however, doesnot mention any traditional source.(72) Ibn al-Jawzi, in histurn, quotes a tradition by the Kufan successor al-Nazzal b.Sabra al-Hilali which attributes to 'All the saying that God called'Umar fariq and he affected the distinction between truth andfalsity. (73)This latter tradition was brought also by al-Muhibb al-Tabaritogether with other similar ones in content.(74) One of them isattributed to Ibn 'Abbas and quotes the Prophet as saying thatJibril told him that 'Umar's name in heaven is friiq.The same idea was brought also by Khargushi but withoutrelating it to Ibn 'Abbas.(75) In this context Khargushi bringsanother tradition which says that Jibril called 'Umar by this titlefollowing his killing of a munafiq (hypocrite). And, in itself, thisincident was connected in two maniqib sources with the revelationof Qur'an 4/60. While one of them attributes it to the Kfifan, al-Sha'bi (d. 103-10 H.), the other makes it a tradition of Ibn'Abbas. (76)Roughly speaking, verse 4/60 warns against those who insincere-ly allege to have believed in what has been revealed to Muhammad

(71) Diyarbakri, Tarlkh al-Khamfs, Cairo n.d., 1/296; Halabi 1/364; Dah.lan1/300.(72) Azhari 9/106.(73) Ibn al-Jawzi, Manaqib, 19-20.(74) Muhibb al-Tabari, al-Riydd, op. cit., 1/246-7.(75) Lawami', fol. 107 (a).(76) Muh.ibb al-Tabari, Riydd 1/246 and Anonymous, Mandqib al-Sahaba,Ms. British Museum, Or. 8273, 13 (a), respectively. (I am indebted to Kister forthe latter source.)

61


17/25

and in the preceding revelations and yet they strive to be judgedby an obscure devilish and unjust figure called idghui.(77) The twotraditions mentioned above state that the occasion of revelationwas a dispute between a Jew and a hypocrite Muslim. The formerasked for the arbitration of the Prophet, while the latter preferredanother figure who is usually described by Muslim sources in a verynegative way but on whose name there is a wide disagreement.However, when the two finally came to the Prophet, he judged infavour of the Jew. On the insistence of the hypocrite to appeal to'Umar, the two went there. But 'Umar, learning about the wholeaffair, got angry and killed the hypocrite. The verse was thenrevealed to Muhammad and Jibril named 'Umar faruq because heaffected a distinction between truth and falsity.Reviewing the tafsfr traditions and commentaries on this verse,however, reveals a wide diversity of interpretations concerning thenames and identities of the people involved in the dispute, thearbitrator preferred by the hypocrite and the involvement of'Umar in the first place let alone his naming as fdruq. In whatfollows we shall limit ourselves to the information provided on thislast issue which is the main concern of the present inquiry.To start with, there is a variety of traditions attributed to Ibn'Abbas for the interpretation of this verse. And some sourcesindeed bring the one which states that Jibril named 'Umar firuiqfollowing the incident mentioned above. Few of them, however,bring this narrative without attributing it to Ibn 'Abbas addingthat when the verse was revealed Jibril said that 'Umar affectedthe distinction between truth and falsity and then the Prophethimself named him fdruq.(78) Others bring the same narrative andattribute it to Ibn 'Abbas but without isnad chains.(79) Finally,only Wahidi and Naysaburi give the full isndd of this tradition asfollows: Kalbi (d. 146 H.) - Abf Salih (d. 101 H.) -, Ibn'Abbs. (80)In order to evaluate this tradition we turn to few more sourceswho bring other traditions from Ibn 'Abbas as well as other

(77) "Have you not marked those who profess that they believe in what has beensent down to you and what has been sent before you; they want to be judged beforethe dtghut, though commanded not to believe in him...".(78) Zamakhshari 1/276; Razi 3/255-6; Nasafi 1/232-3.(79) Baydawi 89; Abf al-Sa'fd 3/320-1; Ibn Ra's Ghanama, Manaqil al-Durar,Ms. Chester Beatty 4254, fol. 18 (a). (I am indebted to Kister for the last source.)(80) Wahidi, Asbdb, Cairo 1316 H., 120; Naysaburi 5/84-5.

62 S. BASHEAR


18/25

THE TITLE (?FABRUQ*AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH 'UMAR I

exegetical authorities. One of these is the pseudo-Ibn 'Abbastafsir work which, strikingly enough, confirms the involvement of'Umar by killing the hypocrite, but on the other hand does notmention his naming as faraq on that occasion by either Jibril or theProphet. (81) Tabari too brings a tradition attributed to Ibn'Abbas through a line of "family isndd" from Ibn Sa'd al-'Awfi(d. 276 H.) and going back to this great grandfather 'Atiyya(d. 111-27 H.). But this version does not mention the naming of'Umar as fdriq or even his involvement in that incident in the firstplace.(82)A third tradition of Ibn 'Abbas is brought by Wahidi on theauthority of Safwan b. 'Amr (d. 100-8) and 'Ikrima (d. 104 H.).No mention of the involvement of 'Umar is made hereeither.(83) On the other hand, Muqatil b. Sulayman (d. 150 H.)says that Jibril descended on Muhammad and told him that'Umar's name was fdruiqwhen he killed the hypocrite and the versewas revealed.(84)From the evidence brought so far we can conclude thatconnecting 'Umar with the revelation of Qur'an 4/60 and hisheavenly naming as faruq on that occasion became current aroundthe mid-second century by people like Muqatil and Kalbi. Onemust not forget that only a generation earlier people like 'Atiyyaal-'Awfi, $afwan b. 'Amr and the transmittor of the pseudo-Ibn'Abbas source did not mention the involvement of 'Umar in thatincident at all. Added to this the various traditions of Mujahid(d. 103 H.), Sha'bi (d. 103-7 H.), Hasan al-Basri (d. 110 H.),Qatada (d. 117-8 H.), Suddi (d. 127 H.), Dah.hak (d. 102-5), Sulay-man b. Tarkhan (d. 143 H.) and al-Rabi b. Anas (d. 139-40 H.),brought by Tabari, Wahidi and Naysburir do not mention suchinvolvement let alone naming 'Umar as fdriq on that occasion.On the whole our investigation reveals some serious gaps in theliterary currents of the first half of the second century to link'Umar and the title friiq to the revelation of 4/60. But this doesnot mean that such currents were negligible, let alone non-existent. In an attempt to identify their possible source and the

(81) Pseudo-Ibn 'Abbas, Tanwir al-Miqbas, in the margin of Suyfti, al-Durr al-Manthur, Cairo n.d., 1/265-6.(82) Tabari, Tafsir, op. cit., 5/98.(83) Wah.idi 188-9.(84) Muqatil, Tafsir, Cairo n.d., 247-8.

63


19/25

driving force behind them one must take into consideration thefact that, in their essence, they reflect a certain belief currentduring that period that 'Umar possessed some divine attributesand guidance. This can be gauged from the very idea that he hasa name, firuiq, in heaven and that God or angel Jibril gave it tohim.Such belief and the divine and angelic ring to naming 'Umar asfariiq gets clear support from a variety of traditions which,although not directly related to the revelation of 4/60 or theoccasion of his conversion, speak of him as an inspired man(muhaddath). Other traditions say that God put the truth on histongue, struck his heart with it, an angel spoke through his tongueor that if there would have been a prophet after Muhammad heshould certainly have been 'Umar.A variety of sources bring such traditions the conduct of fullinvestigation of which lies beyond the scope of this study.(85)However, in order to give a rough idea on the nature and literaryhistory of these beliefs an attempt will be made at checking theisnad and content of some relevant traditions.

Comparing the lists of isnad of the traditions brought byBukhari and Muslim for 'Umar being a muhaddalh, reveals thattheir common link is Sa'd b. Ibrahim al-Zuhri (d. 125-8 H.) whowas a Medinese by origin though his legal traditions were usuallyignored there and transmitted only by Meccans and Iraqis, mainlyfrom Wasit.(86) As for the tradition under review, however, onecan discern a Shri ring to it in the figure of one of its transmittors,the Kifan Zakariyya b. Abi Za'ida (d. 147-9 H.).(87) This lattertransmittor substitutes yukallamin (being talked to, i.e. by angels)for muhaddalhun adding that such people were among the sons ofIsrael but, like 'Umar, were not considered prophets.Another transmittor of this tradition is Ibrahim the son of Sa'd,a Medinese who lived in Baghdad (d. 182-3 H.). The Egyptian'Abdullah b. Wahb (d. 197 H.), who took it from Ibrahim, simplyexplains that muhaddathin means "inspired" (mulhamin).(8s)

(85) E.g., see Bukhari 4/200; Muslim 7/115; Ibn Maja 1/40; Dawadfri 3/179-80;Sufyan b. 'Uyayna, Hadilh, Ms. Zahiriyya, majmu' 22/80; Ibn Shadhan, Hadith,Ms.Zahiriyya,majmi' 87/179.(86) Bukhari4/200; Muslim7/115. On Sa'd see Tahdhib,3/463-5.(87) Bukhari, ibid. On Zakariyyasee Tahdhib3/329-30.(88) Muslim, ibid.

64 S. BASHEAR


20/25

THE TITLE ((FARUQ) AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH 'UMAR I

Ibn 'Ajlan (Muhammad, a Medinese, d. 148 H.) was alsomentioned as one of those who transmitted the tradition of Sa'dand, from him, it was taken by notorious traditionists like Sufyanb. 'Uyayna (d. 198 H.) and Layth b. Sa'd (d. 175 H.). It isinteresting to see how this latter one was quoted by some lexicalsources as saying that God himself called 'Umar fariq and struckthe truth on his tongue.(89)Finally another major hadlth source, Ibn Maja, brings a variantof this last notion with an intersting chain of isnid. It says: "Godput the truth on 'Umar's tongue [so that] he says it."(90) Theinteresting thing in the isndd of this tradition is that it wastransmitted by none other than the biographer Ibn Ishaq on theauthority of Makhul the Damascene (d. 113-6 H.).From this quick glance, it is striking to see how the importanthadfth sources, who completely ignored the idea that 'Umar wascalled friiq by Muhammad and within the stra framework, are fullof traditions on the divine merits and faculties attributed to theman, though not specifically in connection with the revelation ofQur'an 4/60. However, before this conclusion is carried anyfurther, and pending a further research into the subject, it must besaid that other early Muslim figures, especially the first caliphswere also believed to have such divine attributes. The Shfitetraditional Book of Sulaym b. Qays attributes to each of 'All,Fatima and their descendants the title "muhaddath".(91) On theSunni side there are plenty of hqdilh, sfra and mandqib workswhich bring traditions to the effect that 'Umar's title, fdriq, iswritten, among those of the other first caliphs (siddiq for Abf Bakr,dhu al-nawrayn and shahid for'Uthman and ridd for'All) on God'sthrone, the sun's forehead and every leaf of the trees ofparadise. (92)5) Fauiq and Ahl al-Kiidb.

Some sources say that ahl al-Kitab (the people of scripture) werethose who gave 'Umar the title '"fdriq". Most late works bringthis view as an alternative to the other ones mentioned above,often without any traditional source or authority and always(89) Zabidi, 7/43, quoting Ibn Durayd.(90) Sunan, 1/40.(91) The Book of Sulaym b. Qays, Najaf n.d., 181.(92) Cf. al-Nazilli, Mafz', 37.

65


21/25

without reference to the specific occasion on which such title wasgiven.(93) In what follows an attempt will be made at tacklingthese problems and possibly understanding who exactly weremeant by ahl al-Kitdb.The earliest two sources which give this view are the thirdcentury Ibn Sa'd and Ibn Shabba who also provide a full isndd forthe traditional form they bring it in.(94) The same tradition isbrought also by Baladhurl(95) and Tabari.(") The later sourcesquote either Tabari or Ibn Sa'd or else generally reiterate theassociation of this tradition with the name of Zuhri as mentionedby the earlier sources.(97)A quick glance at the isndd chains brought by Ibn Sa'd revealsthat, contrary to the other tradition which he brings, namely theabove-mentioned one of 'A'isha on the Prophet calling 'Umar firuiq,this one is from a source of his other than Waqidl. This othersource of Ibn Sa'd is Ya'qfb b. Ibrahim b. Sa'd al-Zuhri(d. 208 H.). He was a Medinese who lived in Baghdad and, likehis contemporary, Waqidi, was known for transmitting andcirculating maghazi traditions.(98) The second chain is the fatherof Ya'qfb, Ibrahim b. Sa'd al-Zuhri (d. 182-4 H.) whom we havealready met as the source for his other son's, Sa'd's, tradition on'Umar being a muhaddath. This Ibrahim and his sons werereputed for transmitting some of the traditions of their seniorrelative, Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri (d. 124 H.) in a semi-familyline. Concerning the tradition under discussion, however, therestands Salih b. Kisan (Medinese, d. 130-40 H.) as a link betweenIbrahim and Ibn Shihab although he was reportedly older than thelatter. (99)

As for its content, this tradition relates from Zuhri the saying:"it has reached us that the people of scripture were the first to call'Umar fdiriq. The Muslims reported that from them, and it has

(93) E.g., see Zabidi 7/43 and Qalqashandi 1/87.(94) Tabaqat3/270 and Tarnkh 62, respectively.(95) Baladhuri,Ansab,Ms. AshirEfendi, Istanbul,597/8, fols. 829 (a-b). (I amindebted to Kister for this source.)(96) Tadrkh4/195-6 and Dhayl al-Mudhayyal n op. cit., 11/504.(97) Ibn al-Jawzl, Manaqib, 19; Mawsli, Ghayat al-Wasd'il, Ms.Cambridge,Qq.ee(10), fols. 124 (a), 179 (b) (I am indebted to Kister for this source);Ibn al-Athir, Usd, 4/57; Ibn al-Fuwati 4(3)/22.(98) See Ibn Hajar, Tahdhtb11/380-1.(99) Ibid., 4/399-401.

66 S. BASHEAR


22/25

THE TITLE (FFARUQpAND ITS ASSOCIATIONWITH 'UMAR Inot reached us that the Messenger of Allah (s) had mentionedanything of it."It is clear from the wording of this tradition that either Zuhri orone of his later transmittors were aware of the other viewconcerning the Prophet as an originator of the title, and that itcame to contradict that view. However, this tradition does notgive any hint on who exactly were "the people of Scripture" orwhere and in what circumstances did they consider'Umar a faruqor called him as such.In an attempt to fill such a gap we turned to two traditionswhich provide some clues. One is by Sayf b. 'Umar (the TamimiKufan, d. 180 H.) and attributed to Salim b. 'Abdullah b. 'Umar(Medinese, d. 105-8 H.).(100) Owing to the long span of timebetween the two, it is plausible to suggest the missing of at leastone chain in the isnad. Actually this is supported by the way inwhich Ibn Kathir introduces the same tradition, where heexplicitly says: "Sayf b. 'Umar transmitted from his authorities('an shuyukhihi) from Salim who said...".(101)A third source brings the same content of this tradition withoutisnad.(102) As for its content it states that: "when 'Umar enteredSyria (al-sham), a Jew from Damascus told him: peace be on you0' fidrq, you are the owner of (the matter of) Jerusalem (antasahibu 'ilyd), by God, you shall not return until God conquersJerusalem." The tradition goes then to say that, while in Jabiya,'Umar received a delegation from Jerusalem with whom the termsof peaceful surrender where agreed there. It also adds that theabove-mentioned Jew witnessed the peace treaty. He was a manpossessing "knowledge" and 'Umar called and asked him about thefalse Messiah (al-dajjdl), etc.But Tabari brings another version of this tradition with thesame isndd (Sayf... Salim) which, however, has some importantalterations. It specifies al-Jabiya as the place where 'Umar metthe Jew and, more importantly, drops the title firuiq given to himon that occasion and substitutes it with "commander of thebelievers" (am(r al-mu'min(n). A later source, Ibn al-Athir, choseto bring only this latter version and to drop the isnddaltogether. (103)

(100) Tabari, 3/607-8.(101) Ibn Kathir, Bidaya, Cairo 1932, 7/58-9.(102) Ibn al-Jawzi, al-Khamis min al-Muntazam, Ms. Zahiriyya, History 62/29.(103) Al-Kamil, 2/501.

67


23/25

The other occasion on which 'Umar was reportedly called fdruqis mentioned by another tradition brought by Tabari. It has two,almost identical variants attributed to Raja' b. Haywa (d. 112 H.)and Rabia al-Shami (d. 121-3 H.). Both authorities are Syrianfigures and are unique in transmitting this highly isolated traditionon the circumstances of 'Umar's entrance to and prayer inJerusalem "from people who witnessed that."(104) It says thatwhen 'Umar started to clean the Temple site, the ex-Jew fromPalestine and a new convert to Islam, Ka'b al-Ahbar, "magnifiedthe Lord" (Kabbara- as a reaction that a great thing washappening) and people did the same after him. When asked by'Umar to explain he said: "what you have done today wasprophesized by a prophet five hundred years ago." Then, in avery obscure way, the tradition goes on with Ka'b'sexplanation. He said: "the rum have attacked the sons of Israel,ruled then [and buried the Temple]. Then the sons of Israel ruledbut were overrun by the Persians who persecuted them before theyaccomplished [rehabilitating it]. Then the rum ruled [again] untilyou governed following which God sent a prophet on the [place of]assembly/garbage who said: good omen, 0' Jerusalem, the faruq[has come] upon you to clean you of what in you..." (... thummaudtlat al-rim ila an walila, fa-ba'atha alldhu nabiyyan 'alial-Kundsati fa-qdl: ibshirt orishalam 'alayki al-friuqyunaqqiki mimmd fiki...).Tabari says, as noted above, that the same tradition wastransmitted bearing the name of Rabia al-Shami who, however,adds: "the fdruiqhas come to you with my obedient soldiers andthey will take the revenge of your people from the rim ..." (atdkial-fdruq fi jundf al-mutl' wa-yudrikina li-ahliki bi-tha'rikif( al-rum...).6) Conclusions.

In spite of the apparent differences between the Raja'-Rabfatradition and the one by Sayf-Salim mentioned above, they havefew important common links. Foremost, they both point to theJews or converts from Judaism as the source for attributing thetitle "faruq" to 'Umar, a notion which possibly helps to elucidatethe rather vague statement by Zuhri that such title was given to

(104) Tabari3/611-2.

68 S. BASHEAR


24/25

THE TITLE (FFARUQ# AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH 'UMAR Ihim by ahl al-Kiltb. In themselves, these traditions give directsupport to the view expressed by Crone and Cook that this titlemust be seen as an Islamic fossilization of a basically Jewishapocalyptic idea of the awaited messiah. However, the notionstrongly conveyed by these two traditions is that the Jewsperceived 'Umar as a fdruq n connection with his role in deliveringJerusalem from the Byzantines and the resumption of worship onthe Temple site, the most sacred place to Judaism.The occurrence of the title fariq in such context of deliverancefits well into the senses of redemption and salvation born bycognate terms from other Semitic languages current in the area inearly Islam and reflecting Judeo-Christian religious concepts ofmessianic deliverance. And, although such sense was stronglydamped by the bulk of Muslim interpretations of this title, sometraces of it could still be found in the explanatory sentence of"affecting the distinction between truth and falsity", which isclosely associated with it, as well as in the notion that he"demonstrated" or "declared" (azhara, a'lana) Islam, which itpresented in the limited framework of 'Umar's conversion inMecca, in a way that only adds to such damping.On the other hand, a clear support to the sense of deliverancecan be gauged from similar meanings given to other derivationslike farq, fariq, and furqan. To this one must also add the manytraditions which say that God or angel Jibril gave 'Umar the titlefriiq, struck truth on his heart, angels spoke through his tongue,he was an inspired man, etc.But the idea expressed by the Raja'-Rabia tradition that 'Umarwas called fariq/saviour by a prophet who had risen in Jerusalemjust after he assumed power is, to say the least, striking. Nothingcould equal to it in all the Muslim sources I consulted and, in itself,gives a unique support to the rather bold suggestion forwarded byCrone and Cook that the rise of 'Umar as a redeemer wasprophesized and awaited.Above all, such traditions do not only speak about the Jewsbeing the ones who called 'Umar fariq but present the emergenceof this title in a new historical framework and, hence, leave thehistorian of early Islam with a difficult dilemma. On the onehand, there is the highly vivid, though only semi-historicalJerusalem-Jewish context supported by a strong sense of redemp-tion inherent in the title faruq and conveyed by its Semiticcognates in a way that clearly points to a Judeo-Christian origin of

69


25/25

that concept. And this must be weighed, on the other hand,against few Muslim traditions which constitute only a marginalvariant on the stories of 'Umar's conversion in Mecca or hisinvolvement in the revelation of Qur'an 4/60.Other things being equal, one would naturally incline to choosethe Jerusalem-Jewish context. After all, the present inquiry hasraised serious doubts concerning the authenticity of those lattertraditions and the possibility of their being mere literary patchingsin the HijazTframework of s(ra and tafsir But, because things donot stand on their own and owing to the crucial implications suchchoice would have on the historical framework of early Islam, wedecide not to give any final statement on the matter; a task whichthe present inquiry did not and could not aim to accomplish in thefirst place. What it could do, however, is to demonstrate the lackof correlation between the sense of a sharp religious turning pointimplied in the title fciruqand the way the association of such titlewith 'Umar limited it to the stories of his conversion and his role inconnection with the revelation of Qur'an 4/60. In order to putthings in their right proportion, one may suggest to alter theinterpretation of the explanatory sentence "faraqa bayna al-haqqwa-l-bdlil" so that instead of "made a distinction between truthand falsity" it will be taken to mean: affected the distinction of thetrue faith from and as against the false one. But, finally, as it wasindirectly shown, such major religious role was not attributed to orexpected from only 'Umar but from other figures who bore the titlefdruq like 'All, Muhammad and possibly others too.

Suliman BASHEAR.(Jerusalem)

70 S. BASHEAR

3umar and Faruq

Documents

Transcript of 3umar and Faruq